[prt1983]

[

tom stanford, on 02 October 2011 - 11:30 AM, said:

So, here we are in October, the Runoffs are over, and GT-1 had one of smallest fields that I can recall. For me, the need to feel that I am competitive in that event is what brings me out. I no longer feel competitive at Road America which is why I did not enter, and I am sure that is the case for many others. Road America is a fun course for GT-1 cars but it is very HP friendly. If you don't have the HP, you won't have anyone to race with at that track.

The idea that engine cost keeps people from racing is legitimate, especially for tracks like Road America, but I believe it's not the only reason keeping GT-1 cars at home. I don't know the ideal solution to get the cars out, but for me personally it is about being competitive. I'm not saying I have to win, but I have to feel I have a chance. I have raced in GT-1 for many years and have slowly improved all aspects of my car, year after year. My challenge has been that the rules change faster than what I can keep up with. As a result, I fall of the pace.

What it comes down to in my mind is: What is the objective of GT-1 as a class in SCCA club racing? If the objective is to allow rule changes in order to continue increasing speeds and introducing technology, then it looks like the GT-1 objective is on course. If the objective is to have good close racing at a reasonable level of technology, with big enough fields to make it interesting, then it is obvious there is something wrong. I am certainly not advocating a spec engine or a spec class, there are already too many of those. My opinion is keep the rules stable. Judge this by the competitiveness of the GT-1 fields and the level of interest, assuming this is the objective.

Adding another class won't help to improve the GT-1 fields, but again, maybe that's not the objective.

Tom Stanford

Thought I open a new discussion and start off with a response that Tom gave, which was very thoughtful, so I like other GT1 members to discuss it, it seems to me to be somewhat important. To me GT1 is a muscle car race group and I believe shouldn’t be used as a race group for open ended technology like Formula 1. I have revised my comments from the one I previously posted.

Tom,
Read your post and it brings to mind more of what us GT1 racers need to talk about, but first, I was up to RA on Thursday, your right Tom, disappointing small field but not the only class to have small numbers from what I saw that day. I heard a suggestion from a driver that should be seriously consider, the Runoff schedule is too long, costing some people 2 weeks of time and money, I mean when GT1 qualifies on Thurs. and races on Sunday with no racing to do in between, makes for a long week, anyway the suggestion I heard was that the Runoffs should be run like the June Sprints. Very good and logical point, there's nothing wrong with Gt1 and Gt2 in a group, I think that we as a racing organization are going to have to look at some changes.

Tom, to your other point about changes that have cost GT1 and make it harder for some to compete, here's what I see, that more changes are coming that will cost GT1 racers more money because of TransAm, I'll explain later here. Three things have made GT1 more expensive and two of them I think trickle down from TransAm, the first is engines and heads, a big price and the most costly. When I bought my Fringes chassis with Olds body back 94, I ran 23 deg. heads and motor which was common, but there was a lot of talk about the Ford engine and it's heads that perform a lot better, if I remember right there was a 75 lb. weight rule added for the Fords. I think other race series had the same problem, then the head manufacturers started in with the 18 deg. heads and even the 15 deg., some time after that SB2 came out. The Pros start using them, before long SCCA bowed to the change, but things are changing back somewhat, I think a couple of NASCAR short track series have steered away from the SB2, Air Flow Research has dropped their 18 or 15 deg. head if I saw it correctly online, I'm going with AFR 235 23deg. head, the flow rates are close to the 18 deg., so NASCAR and some of the Pro divisions probably will stay with the more expensive engines.

The second thing was the adjustable sway bars, which I think came from the CART race cars, then came to TransAm, there again, SCCA was talked into going with it, there's no adjustable sway bars on American sports cars (sold my fringes/Olds chassis and building up a newer car), I plan to go with non-adjustable sway bars, the way a sports car should be.

The third one is the wing instead of a spoiler, again, trickle down from TransAm to GT1, but the wing is here to stay.

Other then that, the GT1 rules have been pretty stable over that last 20 years.

Now, every GT1 racer should be aware what is about to come and that it will cost us more money, even drive some racers out, my theory to what is happening with TransAm is starting to show the light of day, I have written to Randy a couple of times, that the TransAm rules are getting farther away from GT1 and that it seems like GT1 is not welcome in TransAm unless we want to spend a lot of money to change the cars over. The reply I got back was that the rules were the same except for a couple of safety things, I said wrong and I went thru the whole list, like the right side net which a false claim about safety, I explained some older GT1 cars had the master on/off and Fire button between driver and the right side window, the hours to change that over and hours of labor is a cost to any businessman, plus other differences. I heard a comment at RA, that it might be that SCCA or whoever is running TransAm, that older GT1 cars are not welcome, they want the TransAm to be newer cars.
I told Randy that your making TransAm more of a spec. car to go along with the rest of the Pro Division, with the rule changes and what's coming next year, I told him, that I would think you would learn by what is happening, that GT1 is not as restricting in the rules and GT1 has more cars at their National events than TransAm cars at their races, GT1 had 25 cars (not 25 but 15) for the June Sprints. Instead of being more friendly to GT1 cars and getting them in the field, they went with getting T2 and T3 cars, spec race cars, now this year they added GT-3, another spec. class, so with TransAm being so much faster, their changing the rules next year and costing the drivers alot of money to change and from the other side of the mouth comes, to control cost, no it's to get the class closer to a spec. race car.

Here's what every Gt1 racer should be aware of and ready to stand up too, SCCA or TransAm people are going to say with the TransAm changes to one compression and unleaded fuel, there will be a disadvantage in GT1, so the rules need to change for GT1, which will cost us dearly. We are in a better position to stand up to them now, but the change might come from SCCA without any racer input, here’s a example, I saw a post from “racer14” being unhappy about the weight change for this year, I assume it came from the TransAm people but I was wrong. In August 2010, the Sept. Fastrack came out and in their "not approved section", was 3% decrease of weight for all GT1 cars.
So they heard from the GT1 members and decided not to approve it, then comes Dec. 2010 fastrack for January,

#3189 (J. Richard Grant) Reduce all Gt-1 weights
In 9.1.2.E.1.b.1 and 9.1.2.E.1.C. Apply a 3.5% reduction to all weights and round to the nearest five pounds.

So we can now see what SCCA pulls on it’s members, they got the input from members and didn’t approve it, turn around when a different GT1 racer submitted the change and poof, it was changed like that.
I predict the same will happen with the compression rule and unleaded fuel, I hope I’m wrong.

To Racer14 on the weight, I would have been okay if the weights stayed the same to make sure we didn’t hurt the guys with older GT cars, but we must face facts, probably 90% of GT1 cars are tube frame cars and easily weigh below the new weight limits. There still is the weight penalty of 60 lbs. for Ford splayed heads and 60 lbs for SB2 heads.

Here's one more point all GT1 racers should know about, I've written this to a board member, that someone suggested to SCCA that they should consider having one chassis built with a Crate engine, be cheaper and get more people into the class, SCCA was interested, if that doesn't show that SCCA would like all their classes to be spec. race cars, I don't know what will and I wrote that as long as I'm around, I'll keep GT1 a true muscle car race class.

You know SCCA doesn’t seem to stop, they have to keep making changes that cost us money, like now, seat belts have to be recertified every two years, that's a added cost to racers, it use to be five years, the fire bottle probably is next, but get this, the Indy League and AMLS do not have regulations about getting belts and bottles recertified, so why is SCCA dumping all these regulations costing us more money, they will say that the Insurance Co. wants it, I say show me the policy where it states that, because when the Indy series and others don’t have it when their series are far more dangerous, someone is pulling our chain. Since I've been with SCCA in the early 80's, GT1 has not had a serious accident or some one die, TransAm had the one at Lime Rock in the late 90's, but it was rare how it happen, we sign wavier forms, no one has sued SCCA, if SCCA has to change for safety and not to be sued, that tells me the wavier forms aren't worth the paper their written on, which leads to, are the SCCA lawyers any good?

I'm like the rest of you, I just want to race and not have a lot of regulation costing me money which takes away from racing, it seems like in the last ten years, we are getting hammered with regulations in racing and in the real world. It's going to have to change or a lot of expensive race cars won't be hitting the tracks as much and there's too many GOOD people that we meet at the tracks, which makes the sport fun, to lose that.

Sorry for such a long response, but I’m trying to alert people what has happen in the past and what may happen, I was one of the founding members of our GT1 group along with Rick Dittman, the late Bob Kasik, Jill Peters and a couple of others. Our goal for forming this group was concern about the rules and changes, even back then, as a collective group to be involved and work with SCCA. Yes, we have a good website, we have discussions, we have classifieds, but since SCCA probably doesn’t even check our website, our original goal of a collective group and to have SCCA listen to us, has fallen short. Yes, we can go into the SCCA website and request a rule change, but we could be more affective if we had a poll to include or a electronic petition, numbers would help our cause. They now have these polls and petitions so one can only vote once or sign it once, what we need to check out and it would be for our administrator if we can get something like this included on the GT1 website. Then when someone submits a rule change, we have an electronic petition that can be included.

In also trying to help our group, I’ve sent my resume in to be considered for a spot on the GT Advisory Committee, haven’t heard if I’m accepted yet.

mitch poremba

Email: prt1983a@tds.net

This post has been edited by prt1983: 21 October 2011 - 11:01 PM

[test driver]

Tom, Mitch, etc.,

A few points I would like to mention, first and foremost, for the last 25 + years, GT-1 has been the place for Trans Am level equipment to sort of 'flow' down to, and it is for this reason that GT-1 has stayed very popular over the years, at least at the national level. Very nicely turned out cars could be had for a discount, and since they were designed and prepared to run 100 mile races, 10 or 12 times a year, they could run a national season and the runoffs with relatively few problems. As they got older, more issues would sort of crop up, as the owners learned how to maintain them, but all in all that sort of worked for all parties. Trans Am teams had a place to sell their equipment, and club racers got good deals on top notch cars.

As far as the rule differences, currently the GT-1 rules are more similiar to the CURRENT Trans Am rules than they ever were in the nineties; case in point the overall width, it used to be that you could build an 84" wide bodied car for GT-1, whereas now they both fall under the 80 3/4 inch rule. TA used to have an 8200 rev limit, and 13 to 1 compression ratio max, and for awhile you actually had to run 310's, nothing else was even allowed. Currently the rules are very similiar, no comp rule and no rev limit. We are looking at putting in a rev limit (and perhaps a comp limit) in Trans Am simply to keep from getting out of hand at the pro level. What we are searching for is also a way to let any 'local' GT1 competitor race a TA event without having to invest a lot of money. (The head net thing came from Topeka, we all faught it but to no avail.) I think common sense dictates that a club racer who runs several seconds of the pace of the front runners poses no threat to anyone by running a high compression engine, if thats all they have. Its just a matter of being able to have all this work smoothly. But know this, we not only encourage but welcome any and all GT1 drivers to compete in any TA event they wish to, and we will work out whatever we can to smooth this over for you, within reason obviously.

However, I will say this, what has become pretty obvious to me and others these last few years is that most of the competitors, or would-be competitors, come up with a ton of reasons NOT to race, and if we as a group continued to try to appease every wish of every person who says they would race if.......we would never get any races in. No offense, its just the facts. I can't tell you how many calls Randy gets saying "We would race every event with two cars if you guys would just reduce the entry fees" and so on. As I've repeatedly said, if spending 3000 on a new fuel cell is a big deal to you, then maybe Trans Am isn't for you. Not because 3K isn't a lot of money, but because by it's very nature traveling Pro series are expensive to do. Every time you sticker up its 2000. Brake rotors don't last long, pads either, and if you want to run good be prepared to own a lot of gears. Thats the way Trans Am is and it's going to stay true to that form of high performance envelope, and it's going to work. What we are is 800 plus HP, very loud, very fast, impressive cars for a fraction of the cost of ALMS or Grand Am racing. Also cheaper than World Challenge but a LOT faster. And all of this with 25000 engines that I run way over 1000 miles before even changing the valve springs. No driver aids, you need to know how to shift and control the car from the driver seat. So there you have it...

As far as car counts go, DP curently hovers around 10 cars once past the 24 hr. ALMS can barely fill a podium with its LMP classes. When Trans Am had 30 car fields the pro Atlantic series was pushing 40. Atlantic is gone now, ASA is gone, Hooters Pro Cup is nearly gone, times are different, 20 cars for a premier class right now is a home run, people just have to realize it. As to the runoffs entries, 25 cars at the Sprints shows the class is very healthy. The runoffs use the identical rules, so perhaps the runoffs format is an issue. This would explain why a lot of other classes were struggling to surpass 10 cars.

At the end of the day, these cars are not cheap to run, and trying to reduce the cost of them will not serve the people who are only here because of the open nature of the class. Bottom line, if its too expensive to be competitive on your budget, there are other alternatives such as GTA (which also runs in Trans Am) or, if the runoffs are still your goal, A Sedan is a perfect fit.

Tony Ave

This post has been edited by test driver: 21 October 2011 - 03:33 PM

[tom stanford]

Tony,
Check your facts, 2011 June Sprints had a 15 car field, not 25. I don't think the 2010 Sprints field made 25 cars either (18 or 19?). I think we all know what the 2011 Runoffs field was (11 cars for those that forgot). I haven't seen a 20 car GT-1 field in some time. "Too expensive" is relative to the individual budget, but "at the end of the day" these numbers are low and evidently it IS too expensive. Can you offer another reason? The suggestion to change to another class really doesn't address the low car counts in GT-1, so I'm not sure how that is relevant.

My perspective is certainly different than yours. Trans Am is not for me, and that is true for many of the GT-1 club racers that I know personally. This needs to be considered when rules are being changed, or new rules are being implemented. Otherwise, well, the GT-1 fields get small.

Tom

[prt1983]

Tom,

That was not Tony's mistake, that was my mistake, fingers sometimes going to fast, sorry for the mistake and will try to double check myself, because I don't want to be misleading.

mitch

This post has been edited by prt1983: 21 October 2011 - 10:59 PM

[test driver]

2009 had 22 cars at the sprints, 2008 had 29 entries, although it looks like only 27 started.

I am not familiar with any GT-1 rule changes other than the reduced weight that took place in the meantime, so I really can't agree that rule changes are keeping people away. It is abundantly clear though, that entries in most classes are way down as GT-2 through Lite are fighting to stay above 2.5 cars, there are other examples. As a class, GT-1 continually stays in the top 8 or so classes in national racing, and by its nature it will always be one of if not the most expensive. Really, it shouldn't be anywhere in the top 20 if its so outrageuosly expensive as some incorrectly claim. Simply put, to follow your logic, every class with fewer participants throughout 2011 is too expensive. That would be most of them.... I know it would be nice if we could go this fast for 10 cents on the dollar, but its not going to happen. The people that buy these cars (I've sold 8 in the last two years) would NOT buy them if they were fundamentally slower. It is a different demographic than the guy who runs A Sedan, for example.

Now, a little (admittedly very little) research shows you (Tom Sanford) ran a 2.20 at the June Sprints in 2008. And, I believe a 2.23 in 2007, a year in which I set the record at 2:06.0 in Qual. This record is now 2:03 and change set by Cliff Ebben in one of my new cars. This progression is why some of us do this, believe it or not. If what your looking for is a lap record target that never moves, other classes beckon.

Now, having said that, in 2002 driving a car built, on a budget of about 85K if I recall correctly, by ACI, I turned a 2:08.8. That was on Hoosier Bias Plys using a very, very, high mileage 18 degree 310 Katech. On a good day that engine made about 615 HP, and by the time I had driven it its good days were long gone...

So, my point, there are a ton of good used pieces out there that could put a good driver in the top 5 if they are willing to put the effort out. It is my opinion that you do not need to spend 200K (even though thats what I'm in the business of selling...) to run up front, you could replace what you have for under 100K and presto, there you are.

Don't take this post the wrong way, I want to see as many cars as possible out there in GT-1, but at the same time those of us that were attracted to this for the opportunity to continually push the envelope (within reason) will keep right on doing just that.

Tony

[tom stanford]

Tony,
Thanks for you insights, it certainly clarify's some things for me. Also, you mentioned the reduced weight rule change. I am curious if you have any insight on that change as it originally seemed like the competitor feedback was opposed to it and the board dropped it, according to Fastrack, but it was later implemented. What did I miss?
Tom

[test driver]

Not really sure, I never even knew it came up for discussion until a customer pointed it out. I have heard from customers who liked it and some who didn't. Personally I like having the cars lighter as it saves on some brake expense but there are people with older cars (and some newer) that don't want to get rid of cool shirts, heavy bodywork, etc. just to get down to weight and still achieve their rear percentage. I believe it was actually proposed by a GT1 competitor that never runs Trans Am.

As to the CRB and BoD rules process, I like everyone else sees the 'black helicopter' theories bandied about regarding how the Board has certain agendas, etc. In my experience it simply isn't true. I do get a lot of calls from them looking for an opinion here or there just to get a better understanding of what they are trying to do, and to be honest, if you see the amount of wrangling that competitors do among themselves trying to 'lobby' support for a given direction you would see how confusing it could be to try to give the majority what it wants. Almost impossible in fact. An example.....a front running D Sports Racing driver lobbied, HARD, for a Stan Clayton designed weight table to keep from the endless pursuit of expensive lightweight parts. This went on for over a year I think, then, on the eve of the BoD vote (approximately, just making a point) the same driver (a damn good one I might add) came back on their favorite forum and reversed his stance and lobbied, equally hard, to NOT pass the idea which he himself had championed for a year. Now, put yourself in the CRB and BoD's position on this. How in the world can you possibly have a solid direction on what to do.....

My point is that in my experiance they really want to do whatever will result in the most cars showing up, period.

[tom stanford]

There is no doubt that the Board wants to do whatever will result in the most cars showing up. The hard part, as your example shows, is validating the input they get that it will actually have a positive impact on cars showing up.

I know for some of the SCCA classes that there is an ad-hoc committee that discusses all of the input/letters and makes a recommendation to the Board. The ad-hoc committee consists of technical experts for those classes and are not SCCA officials or board members. The board is not required to follow the recommendation, but in the classes where I know this is done, the Board usually follows.

You have received calls seeking your opinion or looking for a better understanding. I would think there is an ad-hoc committee to help with sorting out a solid direction in the GT classes. Do you happen to know if this type of committee exists for the GT classes? If so, do you know anyone on it?

[prt1983]

Tom,

There is a GT Advisory Committee, from my understanding talking with Mike Lewis at the Runoffs, there was a GT1 member on it but not now, I submitted my resume to them about 3 months ago, but haven't heard if I've been accepted or decline. I'm also kinda interested to see how much the Advisory input is considered.

mitch

[tom stanford]

Thanks for the info.
3 months without any reply means not interested to me. I will do some checking.